If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And Jefferson believed that public funds should be used for religious schools. And that public schools should have areas set aside for religious gatherings, texts, etc.

This was because the only schools at the time were religious and this money was to be used for higher education not general education. You also did not mention that he ommitted religion from his 1778 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge and left religion out of his of 1817 Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education. If Jefferson believed that religion should be ingrained in public schools he had a funny way of showing it...

An anti-theist is someone who, on top of not believeing in any gods, are also opposed to the idea of theism. I am an atheist, more specifically, a non-theist. I don't believe in god but I don't care if anyone else does.

“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand

An anti-theist is someone who, on top of not believeing in any gods, are also opposed to the idea of theism. I am an atheist, more specifically, a non-theist. I don't believe in god but I don't care if anyone else does.

And you believe that 'anti-theism' is behind the desire to have religious objects and beliefs removed from the public sphere? Isn't the question begged: what is purpose for placing those beliefs in the public sphere? In this case here I think the purpose innocent but what if a court found otherwise? I also believe in the rule of law and so differ to it without sinister belief. Radicalism is a two way street and Christians so offended that they become radicalized are no different than the anti-theist of your definition...

And you believe that 'anti-theism' is behind the desire to have religious objects and beliefs removed from the public sphere? Isn't the question begged: what is purpose for placing those beliefs in the public sphere? In this case here I think the purpose innocent but what if a court found otherwise? I also believe in the rule of law and so differ to it without sinister belief. Radicalism is a two way street and Christians so offended that they become radicalized are no different than the anti-theist of your definition...

No. I personally don't care who puts what up. Constitutionally I do care who puts what up. Anti-theists tend to be more outspoken in regards to these situtations. That was the point I was trying to make.

“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand

No. I personally don't care who puts what up. Constitutionally I do care who puts what up. Anti-theists tend to be more outspoken in regards to these situtations. That was the point I was trying to make.

To me they sound no more outspoken then the radicals from the Christian right who go into hysterics with every perceived infringement and, as was exemplified with the discussion on the ten commandments, they have no clue when the line is crossed. This is the problem and why if not for those voices of the anti-theist there would be no voice to squelch the radical theist who has no clue when a line is crossed...